Salce v. Cardello, 210 Conn.App. 66

Background

Mae Salce executed a will and an amended revocable trust with in terrorem clauses disinheriting beneficiaries who (inter alia) filed creditor claims or "objected in any manner" to actions taken in good faith by an executor or trustee.
After Mae died, Attorney Jay L. Goldstein served as executor and trustee; he prepared a Connecticut estate tax return (Form CT-706) that included errors (listing the daughter’s personal bank account as an estate asset and failing to deduct two mortgages).
Defendant (daughter) and her counsel alerted Goldstein; he requested documentation and said he would amend the CT-706 only if instructed by the Probate Court. The defendant filed, then withdrew, a Probate Court hearing request. She produced documentation but did not submit a written claim for reimbursement.
Plaintiff (son) sued in Probate Court to enforce the in terrorem clauses, claiming the daughter had (1) filed a creditor’s claim and (2) objected to the trustee’s actions; the Probate Court denied enforcement and ordered correction of the CT-706.
The plaintiff appealed to Superior Court; after a de novo bench trial the Superior Court found the daughter had not filed a creditor’s claim and concluded enforcement of the in terrorem clauses would be improper given the circumstances.
On appeal, the Appellate Court affirmed: it deferred to the factual finding that no written creditor’s claim was filed, and held that enforcing the clauses to bar challenges to ministerial or nondiscretionary fiduciary errors (like tax filings) would violate public policy.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the defendant filed a creditor’s claim against the estate	Salce: the expense list the defendant gave Goldstein constituted a creditor’s claim and triggered forfeiture under the in terrorem clauses	Cardello: she never presented a written claim as required by statute and had no intent to be reimbursed; Goldstein requested the docs	Held: No creditor’s claim was filed — factually supported (no written §45a-358(a) demand); no forfeiture
Whether challenging the trustee’s preparation of the CT-706 violated the in terrorem clauses and is enforceable	Salce: any objection to trustee actions, including requesting Probate review, falls within the clauses and forfeits inheritance	Cardello: her challenge was justified; moreover, enforcing an absolute ban on objections would be contrary to public policy and impair judicial oversight and tax accuracy	Held: Technically she violated the clause by seeking Probate review, but enforcing it here would violate public policy (bars challenges to ministerial/nondiscretionary errors, harms beneficiaries and state interest), so clauses unenforceable as applied

Key Cases Cited

South Norwalk Trust Co. v. St. John, 92 Conn. 168, 101 A. 961 (1917) (recognizes validity of in terrorem clauses but notes exceptions and limits)
Peiter v. Degenring, 136 Conn. 331, 71 A.2d 87 (1949) (conditions on inheritances must be lawful and not contrary to public policy)
Canaan Nat’l Bank v. Peters, 217 Conn. 330, 586 A.2d 562 (1991) (primary objective is to effectuate testator’s intent; interpret instrument language)
Palozie v. Palozie, 283 Conn. 538, 927 A.2d 903 (2007) (clear and unambiguous instrument language controls)
Keller v. Beckenstein, 305 Conn. 523, 46 A.3d 102 (2012) (creditor’s claim must be presented first to the fiduciary in probate context)
McGrath v. Gallant, 143 Conn. App. 129, 69 A.3d 968 (2013) (defines in terrorem clauses and notes courts construe them strictly)
Griffin v. Sturges, 131 Conn. 471, 40 A.2d 758 (1944) (clause barring appellate review can be contrary to public policy)
Sinclair v. Sinclair, 284 Ga. 500, 670 S.E.2d 59 (2008) (executor remains amenable to law; beneficiaries may compel performance without being penalized)
In re Estate of Wojtalewicz, 93 Ill. App. 3d 1061, 418 N.E.2d 418 (1981) (enforcing no-contest clause could endanger estate assets where executor fails to file proper tax returns)